Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITIONS

Rosyth Dockyard (Defence Diversification)

Ms. Rachel Squire: I wish to present two petitions on behalf of Dunfermline district council. The first is about the future of Rosyth royal dockyard and the importance of a Government industrial strategy which enables employers to promote defence diversification. You will be aware, Madam Speaker, of the uncertainty over the future of Rosyth royal dockyard as it is no longer absolutely guaranteed the work of submarine refitting. The petition about the uncertainty over submarine refitting has been signed by every councillor in Dunfermline district council, representing all political parties, and it ends by stating:
Wherefore your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray that the Honourable Members of the House of Commons will act speedily to convince Her Majesty's Government that any such measures do not take place.
The second petition, on defence diversification, ends by stating:
Wherefore your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray that Honourable Members of the House of Commons will act speedily to convince Her Majesty's Government that recognition must be given immediately to the need for an industrial strategy, a diversification agency and a pro-active regional policy to assist the people of Dunfermline District in preparing for the changes which may affect establishments within Dunfermline District.
I should like to place those petitions with the House.

To lie upon the Table.

Somalia

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. Alun Michael: I feel immensely privileged this morning, on the last opportunity for debate this year, to be able to speak for the Somali people of the north, the former British Somaliland, whose plight has been invisible in the media and to the international community during the past year. The extent to which Somaliland is invisible is shown by the letter to all hon. Members from the Minister for Overseas Development, Lady Chalker, dated 10 December. That letter does not mention the north, Somaliland, once. In view of the discussions that we have had over the past two or three years, I find that quite incredible.
I hope that what I say will accurately reflect the views of the all-party group on Somalia, many of whose members found it impossible to change their arrangements

to be here today. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) particularly wished to be here to speak for the Somalis in her community; and I know that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), as the co-chairman of the group, and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that their contributions will be welcomed by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
The plea that I am about to make is endorsed by aid workers and by leaders of the Somali communities in Britain. I bring to the House a passionate plea from the mayor of Hargeisa, a video of enthusiastic recruits to a new police force, new evidence which arrived from Somaliland only this week, and an endorsement from the Police Federation of England and Wales. But, above all, I bring the plea that this House and Ministers face up to their responsibilities and loyalties over which Britain has hesitated for far too long.
I also have a terrible feeling of responsibility, because if I fail to persuade the Minister to act on some simple suggestions, the plight of people in the north will continue to deteriorate. In that event, in 1993 we could see the famine and violence which we have seen in Mogadishu repeated in Hargeisa and Berbera. That must not be allowed to happen.
Let me make it clear that, when I wrote to seek the debate, I sought a discussion on the north of Somalia only —call it the republic of Somaliland, the north or the fromer British Somaliland if hon. Members wish, but I will call it Somaliland for ease of reference. The name is not important, but what is important is that its history and its present situation are totally different from that of the other Somalia—call that the south, the former Italian Somaliland, or the area around Mogadishu—which appears on our television screens day by day.
Before coming to the essence of the debate, I will make two points. Terrible violence, famine and confusion have racked the south. The bravery of aid workers from voluntary organisations in Britain and from other countries has been colossal. The suffering of the people in the south has been immense.
The decision of the United Nations to take up military aid was right, and one must ask why the international community waited so long before acting and then did so only when America offered to do the job. The only mistake was the suggestion that American troops could move in and be gone in days, when careful work is needed in co-operation with the elders and faction leaders to establish stability and the conditions for long-term development. The Americans now appear to have a better appreciation of the situation, and President-elect Clinton is showing sensitivity—thank God—and a willingness to grapple with the real problems.
We must acknowledge that conditions in the north are totally different, and I will briefly describe the history in the hope that the Minister will agree that my account is accurate and can be taken as common ground in this Chamber.
The Somali nation is mainly to be found in five areas —the former French Somaliland, now the independent state of Djibouti; the former British Somaliland; the former Italian Somaliland; northern Kenya; and Ethiopia. When they both gained independence in 1960, British Somaliland rushed to merge with Italian Somaliland with what many of those involved now consider to be indecent


haste, based on faith and trust in a united future. Together they formed Somalia—a land shaped like the figure seven, with the former British territory forming the horizontal part of the seven.
Under the despotic rule of President Siad Barre, Somalia became a client state of first the Soviet Union and then the United States because of the strategic importance of naval facilities in the vicinity of the gulf. Barre's rule was characterised by violence and the violation of human rights. When the people of the north rebelled, he responded ruthlessly with the devastation of towns and villages, while many of those who were not killed fled into the bush and to refugee camps of Ethiopia.
While the excesses of Barre's Government were well documented, little came to the attention of the media and the international community, so we still talk of it as the hidden war. Britain stood aloof, deferring to the Italians, whose influence in the south was considerable but not always positive. The Somali National Movement enjoyed immense popular support in the north and successfully swung the tide of events against Barre. Opponents in the south gathered strength to challenge Barre as well.
The factions about which we have heard a good deal in recent months, led by General Aideed and Ali Mahdi, fall within one of the southern rebel groups, which have no greater claim to recognition than the SNM, which has maintained a fragile unity through trying and difficult times. As the fighting moved south towards Mogadishu, the media and the international community woke up to the existence of the conflict and their focus has remained on Mogadishu and the south. That concentration rightly awakened the conscience of the world eventually, but that is no justification for allowing the north to remain all but invisible. It is the north—the self-styled Republic of Somaliland—on which our debate must concentrate, not least because its people fought for Britain in two world wars and served in the Merchant Navy for more than a century, and because the family links of many British citizens are in the north.
I appeal to the Minister to leave the south on one side for the purposes of this debate, as I hope that there is no difference of perception between us about that part of the country. I ask the Minister also to set aside the question whether or not the north should be recognised as an independent state—as the Republic of Somaliland. Certainly the people of the north have a rock-solid conviction of their right to independence. As Edna Adan Ismail puts it—her husband was the Prime Minister deposed by Siad Barre in a coup—the two former colonies united in too swift a marriage and the experiences of recent years have led them to seek a divorce.
The United Nations has wisely decided that the lack of a real Government in Somalia means that help must be provided region by region. In time, there may be national reconciliation, and we will have to see whether that leads to an amicable and friendly divorce or to the continuation of a single Somalia. However, I hope that the Minister agrees that that matter is not one that must be decided now but can be put to one side for the time being.
For the moment, the priority is to understand the entity that exists and to build on whatever positive aspects exist.

The question of recognition can therefore be left on one side for a future occasion: the question now is how best to help the Republic of Somaliland.
Let me come to the simple nub of today's debate: what is Britain's responsibility, and how can Britain help to save the situation in the north? In Somaliland, the situation is relatively stable, with no need for military intervention. That fact is recognised in a parliamentary answer given to me by the Minister only last week, so it is not in dispute. But a generation of young people in that part of the country were brought up when their families and the whole community were engaged in fighting a ruthless dictator. They need education, skills, and stability in order to settle down to a positive future. The will is there, but the cash and the structure are not. For instance, there is no police force and no local or regional structure of government. Britain must help the establishment and training of a police service and then of a Government service.
Yesterday, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar, who has been a tower of strength as we have tried to find ways of helping Somalia, I viewed a video that includes a number of interviews, including British officials meeting the elders three weeks ago. It also shows a community celebrating hope as 300 men, recruited as police, march into Hargeisa. They are without training and without pay, and that very occasion seems a triumph of hope over experience, but it is one of two cornerstones on which we must now build.
The other cornerstone is the meeting in Boruma on 9 January when elders from all tribes in the north—not just from the SNM—will seek to establish a realistic basis for an Administration. It is anticipated that the present embryo Government will step aside to allow a new leadership team to take over, binding together the whole community.
Let Britain put on the table an offer of help that can offer motivation and increased hope to the meeting at Boruma and let that be done now. There are three steps that, taken now, would be the best investment ever in the future of Somaliland.
First, following his response to me in the September debate, the Foreign Secretary sent an expert to consider how best to provide a telephone system for the north. I welcome that response, but please can it be speeded up? It will help enormously if decisions taken at Boruma and afterwards are communicated quickly to the outside world.
Secondly, let us offer money to pay the police, and to pay for uniforms and for advisers to help train and support the embryo force for a limited period of weeks or months, at least in the first instance.
Thirdly, let us provide advisers from the civil service and from local government in Britain to help reconstruct the administration and stabilise the situation. Working closely with Save the Children and others who have continued to work in Somaliland, the good that could be done in a short time is enormous—and it is what the people in Somaliland want.
The Minister will agree that that is a simple and limited programme which I feel reflects the minimum that members of the all-party group on Somalia believe that Britain can do to get some way to fulfilling our obligations. I say to the Minister, by all means stress as loud and long as he wishes that those actions imply no formal recognition of a new state, but for God's sake allow these minimal steps to be taken. The people of Somaliland look


to Britain to take a lead, and so do people such as the United States Under-Secretary of State and our European partners.
The sense of this set of proposals has been recognised on all sides and confirmed as acceptable by the Somaliland head of mission in London, Mr. Osman Hassan, only this week. To strengthen our plea, let me read a letter brought to me by hand yesterday from the mayor or Hargeisa, Omar Mohamed Handulle:
I would like, if I may, to advise you on the current situation in Somaliland and request that you use your best offices in enlisting the help of the British Government in answer to this appeal.
You already know that, following the defeat of the dictator of Somalia, Siad Barre, a meeting was held in Burao in May 1991, at which a mandate was received by the present Government from the Somali National Movement and the people of Somaliland as a whole to rule the Independent state of Somaliland for a period of two years, following which a fresh election would be held.
During the time of its rule the Government has experienced continuing difficulties through lack of finance. Its Ministers remain unpaid, as do also its militia, teachers, medical officers and indeed all civil servants.
It is a matter of small wonder, therefore, that looting by groups of brigands has occasionally caused some nongovernmental organisations to withdraw from the country. The need to avert this type of development is urgent. We are afraid that appeals to the international community through the United Nations will result in too late aid arrive. It is for this reason that we appeal to you for aid. Already we have made strenuous efforts towards establishing a peace agreement signed recently in Erigavo, Shekh and Hargeisa. However, it is one thing to establish an concord, while it is another to secure an environment for the maintenance of good order. It is in this area where we need outside help of utmost urgency. My reason for making this appeal to you arises partly because I think you may feel, in view of past British rule in the former Somaliland Protectorate, a degree of moral responsibility in taking the lead among nations. Also, the Somalilanders as a whole feel a strong affinity with the British and fought with them against a common enemy in two world wars. We think that an amorphous body such as the United Nations cannot have the empathy which we believe still exists in many British minds today. The British Government's responsibility regarding recognition of Somaliland as a separate state is our determined expectations. We cannot agree that present circumstances in the Somaliland and in Somalia is a rational policy. The problems of Somaliland are not those of Somalia. In Somaliland there is a popularly appointed democratic Government; in Somalia, there is no Government! In Somaliland there is peace and in Somalia there exists civil war of a most cruel kind; in Somaliland there is a little famine and in Somalia there is drastic famine. Thus, one may ask with pertinent logic, 'Why is a common solution being attempted to solve problems which are diverse?' Hitherto, British aid and funding through other sources has been small grants to non-governmental organisations. This has, however, been productive at least to certain level, in mines clearing, water supplies, sanitation and partly education. It is a matter of internal security that holds the key to future development.
That is the point that I underline, above all else, to the Minister. The mayor of Hargeisa continues:
Several of us have talked together about this and would now like to put forward a formal proposal that the British Government provides us with a few experienced Police officers as technical aid who would train our police. We have already recruited a mixture of Militia and former Policemen and 300 to patrol the capital Hargeisa, but they need training, uniforms, food rations, transport, means of communication and eventually housing and pay. We cannot at the moment meet expenses for any of these because we collect no local taxes as yet for security reasons.
That is the vicious circle that is illustrated by the letter. The mayor ends with these words:

If such an exercise could be mounted by the British, it could then extend and be duplicated throughout the country, even eventually becoming the envy of Somalia. A colleague of mine has recently met Mr. Turnkington of the British ODA in London and discussed this issue with him and he was assured that the British were backing Ambassador Sahnoun's efforts in these matters. Sahnoun's resignation has since created a serious vacuum and a tacit neglect of Somaliland by the United Nations as a whole.
That plea, from a local authority in Somaliland, surely demands a response from us.
I am grateful for the kindness of Robert Turnbull, Somalia field director of Partner Aid International, for acting as postman and for providing a fascinating video which has confirmed the views of those in Somaliland.
The mayor's plea is endorsed by the President of Somaliland and by the elders, but, coming from the mayor of Hargeisa, it gets us away, despite his references to independence, from the question of recognition and the authority of national or regional leaders. We can start here and, if it works, help it to spread. Stability in the north will benefit the whole region, the hard-hit south and neighbouring Ethiopia.
It is a plea which I discussed yesterday with leaders of the Police Federation of England and Wales. They saw great merit in the secondment of British police officers and quoted examples of where that has worked in the past—perhaps by recruiting experienced officers who are on the point of retiring, to avoid a negative impact on police strength in England and Wales, which is not the subject of today's debate but which is important to us all.
It reflects the strong view expressed at a packed meeting in the Grand Committee Room recently, organised by the all-party group, in co-operation with Brigadier Malcolm Page for the Anglo-Somali Society and attended by many Somalis and British people who served in the former Administration during and after the end of British rule.
It is a plea to which only Britain can respond because of the trust and confidence that people in Somaliland still place in us, though, God knows, we have done little enough to deserve it. It is a way forward that experts on the ground—

Mr. Tony Worthington: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having secured this debate. I concur with him on the need for a British initiative, but does he not agree that it was disappointing that it took until November for the British ambassador in Addis Ababa, who is responsible for northern Somalia, to visit northern Somalia in order to find out what is happening there? I agree with my hon. Friend that no other country is as well placed as Britain to show some initiative. My extensive contacts with Somalis in this country have demonstrated that they cannot understand why that initiative has not already taken place.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who visited Somalia during the summer, for his confirmation of that point. His view is supported by the Save the Children Fund and other groups, which believe that such an initiative would work.
The overwhelming consensus is that Britain must take this step and that nobody else can do it for us. The international community would understand and respect a move by Britain to help now. Others may help, but we must take the lead.
Frankly, despite the genuine concern which has been shown by Lady Chalker and other Ministers, we have done


too little to fulfil our historic obligations to Somaliland. As a recent parliamentary answer showed, the Government have not even kept records to show how much aid from our aid budget went to help the north. I appeal to the Minister to make an offer now, in time for it to be discussed by the people of Somaliland and their leaders at the conference in January.
I also ask the Minister to arrange for the Foreign Secretary to meet personally a number of people after the holiday period in order to consider the mayor's letter further. As well as officers of the all-party parliamentary group, I would suggest that he should meet representatives of the aid organisations, particularly the Save the Children Fund and the Anglo-Somali Society. Each of those organisations would be able to offer practical suggestions and help on how to make progress.
Too many ministerial answers say that the Somalis must solve the security problem before we can help. That is not a tenable argument. The fact is that we have the opportunity to help to establish just that security which is certainly needed so that Somali can show the pride and independence of spirit which has always characterised them and help themselves to build a new Somaliland.
If the Minister gives a positive response, I know that it will be received with enthusiasm on all sides. It will be the best possible answer to an elder on this tape who, recalling his memory of the negotiations in 1948, says:
You are in a deep sleep, the British. Now what we need is not food but help with training, with demobilising the army, communications and media to tell the world we are independent and different from the South.
He says that cash is the problem.
I have one final suggestion. It will be some time before a Parliament exists, in the full sense, for Somaliland or Somalia, but the support and interest of British Members of Parliament is seen as a symbol of hope. Will the Minister agree to a visit to Somaliland early in the new year by representatives of the all-party group? That is something that my co-chairman, Lady Chalker and I agreed to some time ago, with the caveat "when the time is right". I am sure that the time is now right for us to be seen to be taking an interest and to be closely involved with the situation in Somalia.
The elders in Somaliland accept, albeit reluctantly, that one does not need recognition or independence in order to run a police force, or to provide education, or to start rebuilding. We can unite on the point of working in the regions, a point with which I know the Minister agrees and the United Nations supports. However, to do any of these things, we need security, law and order and a police force. Britain can help to achieve that stability. Britain has a duty to do so. Parliament has a duty to help. Please, I appeal to the Minister, let us not fail in that duty.

Mr. John Bowis: I thank my co-chairman, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), for the way in which he introduced the debate, for his choice of subject and for allowing me briefly to support what he has said about the people of Somaliland. My hon. Friend the Minister knows why we are raising the problems of that area in particular—it has constituency contacts going back many generations, and more recently with the refugees.
The eyes of the world have not been on Somaliland. The television cameras are not there, the press photographs do not come from there, the United Nations does not look there and nor does the European Community. That is why we must look there. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman read out the rather moving letter from the mayor of Hargeisa. It is the sort of message that we knew existed, but it is the first time that it has been in writing before the House.
I wish briefly to refer to another part of Somalia, which is not to the south but to the west. The charity Concern, which is based in my constituency, operates in that part of Somalia. It is an example of the sort of aid that is needed in the north. Concern has focused its work on nutrition, in particular targeting severely malnourished children, but also malnourished adults, the sick and the elderly. It has also been involved in agricultural sanitation and education work.
Concern has 38 expatriate personnel in that part of Somalia, ranging from doctors and nurses to engineers, administrators and agriculturists. It has 850 Somali staff. The charity is achieving a great deal. It has opened 14 wet feeding centres, two 24-hour therapeutic centres for children and one for adults, and it is about to open a second for adults. The numbers attending the feeding centres were rising, but they are now falling, and there is good news in that. They rose from 650 in May 1992 to 30,955 in September, but then dropped to 21,339 in November. The reason for the fall is that many families now feel able to return to their farms. The death rate has also dropped. That is a tribute to what those people have achieved.
Concern has distributed food to 83,600 beneficiaries, and provided 43 million tonnes of sorghum, 6.3 million tonnes of cowpeas and 3.2 million tonnes of groundnuts. It has distributed 40,000 blankets, 70,000 T-shirts and more than 240,000 m of cloth. Vegetable kits have been distributed and seeds are being planted. The crops are growing. It is fortunate that there has been rain in recent weeks, so the crops are doing well.
We all share their concern about security. I hope that the Government are keeping in close touch with the Americans because there is a risk of retaliation to the expatriate workers and their Somali colleagues as the American troops move through the country. The interests of those workers must be paramount.
The message that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has brought to the House is that everything is possible if the will exists. I hope that I have shown that everything has been possible in one part of Somalia; we want it also to be possible in the north. Somaliland has called this morning, and I hope that the House and the country will respond.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for allowing me to participate in the debate. I appreciate the work of the Committee, and in particular the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), who unfortunately cannot be here this morning.
Everyone must be deeply concerned and alarmed about what is happening throughout Somalia. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth was right to


say that the world has transferred its attention to the former Yugoslavia and is largely ignoring the crisis in southern Somalia. The bottleneck at the port of Mogadishu and the warlords who are fighting around it have caused an enormous problem. Aid cannot get through and, obviously, it is being stolen and pillaged.
Somalia has the misfortune that it was of great strategic interest to the super-powers of the past, which in a sense is the base of its current problems. It was of great interest to the British in the 19th century and later to the Italians, the Soviet Union and the United States. That led to the way in which the Barre regime behaved—the playing of super-power politics that ultimately ended in its own destruction. Unfortunately, large numbers of people were killed at the same time.
United Nations resolution 794 points out the need for security to bring in the necessary food aid and vital equipment needed to restart normal human life in southern Somalia. There is a great danger in that. I do not understand how the United States can get in and out by 20 January. I fear that it does not have any carefully thought out political agenda.
I am also concerned about the fact that the American troops are not under United Nations command. I would be much happier if it was a United Nations force under United Nations command, and preferably drawn from a much wider group of countries. There should be a political agenda that recognises the fact that a political structure already exists in Somaliland in the north and also in parts of the south. We should not seek to impose a solution from elsewhere; we should work for a solution from the indigenous people.
There was a good article in The Guardian on 3 December by Said Samatar, who is a professor of African history at Rutgers university. He explains the problems very well and points out that if there is to be any resurrection of hope throughout the country, and if there is to be normal government, that cannot be achieved by flying in experts from around the world to impose a system; it must be done through the elders working through the local communities, gradually building up a system of government. I commend the article to the Minister and pay tribute to the expertise of Said Samatar.
My constituency, together with many others, has a significant number of Somali refugees. Many sad families live there. They may be sad, but they are proud people who have come from a background of pride. They have also come from a background of anger and horror about what has happened to their country. They are looking for safety in this country. They want to contribute; they are not supplicants at the window. They also want to take their skills back to Somalia when safety and other conditions there allow that.
I ask the Minister to say to his colleagues in the Home Office, "Please understand the needs of asylum seekers." I want him to pass a strong message to the British missions in Addis Ababa, Cairo, Khartoum and Nairobi that there needs to be a far greater degree of understanding of the desperate need for family reunion and of the horror felt by elderly relatives who are left waiting for months on end for news of what has happened to their families. I end on that plea.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for raising the question of Somalia today. It is very timely. The House knows of the great interest that he takes in all aspects of Somali affairs, especially in the north-west. He has done a great deal of work for charity and his tremendous and tangible commitment to the cause of those he respects and of whom he is fond is visible to all. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and to the hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for their contributions.
I want to make a few quick points. I shall attempt to answer the questions raised, but it would not be wise of me to try to make policy on my feet, especially during the last seven minutes of a debate. The Government understand the enormous bitterness felt by people from the north about the treatment that they endured from Siad Barre. Now that he has gone, I hope that Somalis everywhere, both north and south, will co-operate with the United Nations in securing reconciliation throughout the country. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth agrees that that transcends the political ambitions of people in the north-west to seek independence.
My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development sent a letter on 10 December immediately we heard news of the United States/United Nations expanded military operation which, I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree, focuses rightly on the centre and the south. I know that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has discussed the north with my right hon. and noble Friend, the Minister for Overseas Development, on many occasions. She is in no doubt about the situation in the north-west, but the reason for her letter was different.
Of course we stand ready to help in many of the ways that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth described. We have now received the report from the telecommunications expert and we are considering it quickly. The BBC has already agreed to broadcast messages. With regard to the United Nations development programme, the Germans are already involved in the police. We do not want to duplicate and confuse. We are prepared to consider help with civil administration, but we want to work with the United Nations. I apologise for making such a short comment on that point, but I do not have time to do more this morning.
I am most grateful for the copy of the letter from the mayor of Hargeisa, and its contents will be communicated to my right hon. and noble Friend immediately. I know that she will be prepared to meet the all-party group again and representatives of the Somali people and discuss whether it would be right for the parliamentary Somali group to visit the country in the near future.
In response to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, I must point out that officials from the embassy in Addis visited northern Somalia in February well before the visit of the ambassador in November. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, I stress that we work very closely with Concern. Concern is extremely good, as are so many of the non-governmental


organisations as we are all aware. We have encouraged Concern to make new requests to us for assistance from the new pledge of £4.5 million announced on 4 December.
I am aware that the concern of the hon. Mininster for Islington, North is genuine, but I hope as gently as possible to put him right. Of course there has, in the past, been a lack of political attention to the problems of Somalia although not in humanitarian terms so far as Britain is concerned.
However, the world is now paying considerable attention and a major world power has made a commitment. Whatever the hon. Member for Islington, North may say about the desirability of it being a United Nations operation or an American operation, we should give the fullest possible credit to the United States for making that commitment to try to help those troubled people in a part of the world which most people in the United States would have difficulty locating on a map. It would be churlish of us not to give profound and deep recognition and gratitude to the American initiative following the Security Council resolution.
I must now spend a minute considering British aid, as I must in every debate. We have given enormous support and are one of the largest donors. Since the fall of Siad Barre, we have provided £37 million of humanitarian assistance. That includes 34,000 tonnes of food, 19,000 tonnes of which has already been delivered. No one can doubt our commitment to Somalia as a whole.
Many issues must be considered in the next few months. First and foremost is security over the whole country. Secondly we must consider relief. Thirdly, we must consider political reconciliation and finally we must consider rehabilitation and reconstruction. Obviously, I cannot make many structured remarks today. However, the Government and I recognise that the threats to the

relative peace of northern Somalia should not be discounted. They must be considered in the current operation. We know that some of the armed gunmen from the south are moving northwards, and that is naturally a matter of concern.

Mr. Michael: Will the Minister try to give a positive response which will enable British support to be seen specifically for the meeting on 9 January?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's request and I shall give him a more considered reply in due course.
The political situation is obviously of concern to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and his friends and contacts in the north west of the country. Political reconciliation must begin first at the grass roots level. We all know that it cannot be imposed through military strength. That is why the United Nations initiative to conduct local and regional consultations with military leaders and clan elders who are such an important part of Somalia's traditional system of authority, and other civil groups, to begin to establish a framework for national reconciliation is so important.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that there may be an amicable divorce in due course. I cannot comment on that. However, the important point is that there will be consultation through the United Nations. That is an enormously important way forward and we strongly support that approach. That approach will take time, but it will start soon.
I am pleased that the United Nations Secretary-General intends to become involved. We understand that he plans to begin the process by meeting Somali factions and other Somali representatives in early January, possibly as early as 4 January although it may slip a day. We hope that that will be the beginning of a fruitful dialogue and will enable the factors that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has mentioned to be taken into account.

Textile Industry

Mr. Graham Riddick: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise matters of concern and interest to the textile industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry is not new to these debates. Indeed, he and I have participated in such debates on many occasions. I am delighted to see him in the Chamber and I welcome him to the debate.
The textile industry is of considerable importance, both in the country as a whole and in my constituency. The industry employs 420,000 people, of whom 15 per cent. are employed in my region of Yorkshire and Humberside. It is interesting to note that there are 95 textile firms in Huddersfield. That figure is exceeded only by Bradford, which has 130 firms while Leeds has 72. That shows the importance of the textile industry to my area.
Of course the industry has suffered seriously during the recession, just as every other part of British industry has suffered. However, it is not all bad news. Many people believe that the textile industry is now more forward looking and better managed than in the past. Exports have increased by 25 per cent. over the past four years and we have seen further improvements in productivity. The industry has become more responsive to consumer requirements and now pays more attention to quality, design and innovation.
The fact that the BBC provides prime viewing time on a Sunday afternoon to "The Clothes Show" is a positive sign and reflects well on the textile industry. Indeed, I think that "The Clothes Show" is one of the best programmes on television. I say that not simply because I made a recent appearance on the show when supposedly modelling swim wear during the House of Commons versus House of Lords swim. I am not going to tell the House how I did in the swim, except to say that I think that my modelling, which was not up to very much, was better than my swimming. However, it was certainly a very enjoyable occasion.
My purpose in initiating this debate is to ensure that the textile industry is kept at the forefront of Ministers' thoughts and to ensure that some of the important issues can be aired in the House. It is important that we have regular debates so that the issues can be discussed and debated.
I want to examine developments within the GATT round, the multi-fibre arrangement and the need to tackle the unfair trading practices of other countries. I want to consider the way in which some of our European partners are providing anti-competitive subsidies to their home industries, thereby putting the British industry at a disadvantage. I will also consider the environmental standards with which British companies have to comply, along with Government support for overseas trade fairs. However, at the end of the day, the general state of the British economy will be the most fundamental factor in the fortunes of the textile industry. I shall deal with that later.
I welcome the agreement eventually hammered out in the GATT round between the Community and the United States. I am glad that the French Government did not repeat their threat to veto the GATT round on agriculture at the Edinburgh summit last weekend. It would he unforgivable for the French Socialist Government to scupper the GATT round simply to curry favour with their

featherbedded farmers in the run-up to next year's elections. Such a veto would be a hammer blow to the Community.
Despite the agreement on agriculture, we have not yet finally agreed a GATT settlement, although it looks certain that such an agreement will be signed. Some issues are still outstanding. The United States currently levies a 36 per cent. duty on this country's wool cloth exports. So far, the United States has offered only a token tariff reduction which would leave most tariffs at more than 30 per cent. The American negotiators have offered to reduce the tariff on very fine wool cloth to 20 per cent., but such cloth makes up only about 1 per cent. of British exports to America. Therefore, it means little and is just not good enough.
I hope that the Minister is pushing the Community to seek a more substantial reduction in American tariffs. A danger is that the incoming Clinton Administration could have a more protectionist outlook than the outgoing Administration. I hope that the Government will take every opportunity to persuade President Clinton and his team not to go down the route.
Other developed countries, such as Australia and South Africa, also levy high tariffs. Australia's tariffs range up to 55 per cent. There is no fixed maximum, so those tariffs could be increased after a GATT deal. Many developing countries, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, China, Thailand, India and Pakistan, levy prohibitive tariffs, some of which are as high as 200 per cent. All those countries have burgeoning middle classes who find British cloth attractive. Some people find it hard to imagine that we could sell some of our fine worsted cloth to those developing countries, but there is a demand for it. However, the tariffs that are imposed on our exports significantly increase the price and suppress demand.
It is extremely important for the European Community to make it clear to all the countries involved in the GATT negotiations that the EC's commitment to phase out the multi-fibre arrangement within 10 years is conditional on binding tariff reductions that cannot be raised in future. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Government and the Community are taking that approach in the negotiations.
I hope that the Minister will have some news about the extension of the multi-fibre arrangement during the interim period before a new GATT agreement. I understand that the roll-over of the MFA has still not been agreed, although the Minister may have up-to-date news about that. An interim agreement is important.
There is a need to end trade distortions in the Community. It is feared that some European Governments are cheating by handing out anticompetitive subsidies, thereby subverting the spirit of the single market and its law. The Minister will know about the Belgian companies that have been ordered by the European Commission and the European Court to repay subsidies but have still not done so about five years after being ordered to repay the money. There is an example of £120 million worth of illegal subsidies being paid to an Italian textile firm. That money has still not been repaid, and that is not good enough. I am not one of the Maastricht treaty's greatest fans, but I welcome the treaty's provision to give powers to the European Court to levy fines in such cases.
There are other examples of European Governments subsidising their textile industries at the expense of the


British textile industry. Some may say that the British Government should subsidise our industry. I do not accept that approach and, as far as I can see, the Commission does not accept it either. The Minister may like to comment on that. As we have seen in this country over the past 20 or 30 years, Governments are not good at picking winners. The EC's objective should be to create a free and fair market. We should not be in the business of featherbedding inefficient companies which have lost market share and, for whatever reason, are no longer profitable.
The French company VEV went bust two years ago, but it has been rescued by the French Government and the Credit Lyonnais bank, which is 100 per cent. state-owned. That company collapsed despite earlier large injections of illegal grant, but the French Government are keeping it going at the expense of British companies—its more efficient competitors. The Wallonian regional authority in Belgium is of course renowned for its subsidies to textile companies. One hears much anecdotal evidence of back-door subisidies by continental Governments to their home industries. I urge the Minister to do what he can to ensure that the Commission prohibits anti-competitive state aids which distort competition. The Commission must also enforce rapid recovery of illegally granted aid.
Environmental obligations have been placed upon textile companies and strict standards for the discharge of effluents have been imposed. I was told by a senior representative of the industry that Britain's environmental standards are more stringent than those of any other country. There is evidence that some inspectors in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution are less flexible than they might be. Will the Minister ensure that the Government show understanding and flexibility to the industry, especially during these difficult economic times? He may need to speak to Ministers in the Department of the Environment about that.
We should not impose unduly tough or unnecessary environmental standards. Plainly, we must ensure a clean environment, but there is a feeling in the industry that Britain alone in the EC has gone for the most stringent interpretation of European environmental targets, thus costing our industry enormous sums in new investment simply to meet those high standards. Companies have been making a great deal of new investment, but some of it has been for environmental reasons and has not contributed to greater productivity.
I am not suggesting that we do not want to clean up the environment, but the Government must ensure a flexible and sensible approach. Without such an approach, we are at a competitive disadvantage. I trust that future legislation for the environment or for any other area will be examined for its economic implications. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board.
About three weeks ago, we had an extremely useful debate on small businesses. One of the key features of the debate was the way in which hon. Members on both sides of the House, but especially Conservative Members, homed in on the problem of red tape and regulation. Those representing small businesses in my constituency complain increasingly about the regulations with which they must comply. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has taken the matter on board. He is launching a

crusade against too much red tape and regulation within the European Community generally and in the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is in charge of the battle against red tape, and I wish him well. We know that red tape can impose a great deal of extra cost on businesses.
I shall touch on the hope that the Government have provided to the industry in its export efforts. It has undoubtedly benefited from various export promotion schemes, but it is somewhat concerned about the so-called three-times rule, which restricts the support that is provided by the Government for a company's participation in trade fairs in a particular country to only three occasions. The rule is likely to hit the textile industry particularly hard because of the many fairs—often they are repeated twice a year due to seasonal factors—that textile companies have to attend. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give me an assurance that he will reconsider the rule.
The industry would appreciate receiving more help from our embassies, especially in the form of telling it and representative bodies as well as the Government of unfair trading practices, be they dumping, subsidising or whatever, of which they learn.
I have listed several issues that are of concern to the textile industry. The most important factor for the industry, however, is the state of the economy, both at home and in the wider world. I have no doubt that, in the context of the British economy, there have been put in place the appropriate economic conditions for recovery at home. Interest rates have been reduced by three percentage points. The reduction will give enormous help to companies in investing for the future as well as putting more money into consumers' pockets. The more competitive pound will help our exporters, and there is some anecdotal evidenced that overseas orders are increasing. The slowdown in Germany is alarming, especially as it will have a knock-on-effect throughout the rest of Europe, particularly northern Europe. As a counter-balance, it is encouraging to see that the American economy is showing clear signs of recovery.
This is the third debate on the economy and on issues of interest to industry in which I have spoken over the past six weeks. As I have said, I spoke in the debate on small businesses which took place about three weeks ago. I spoke in the recent debate on unemployment, and now we are debating the textile industry. At the end of the day, the key factor is to ensure that we get the right economic conditions.
We all know that interest rates have been too high for too long, and I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to reduce them by three percentage points over recent months. I do not know whether there is scope for reducing them still further. Some economists—some of the seven wise men —argue that intest rates could be further reduced without necessarily creating more inflation simply because companies will not be able to pass on the increased costs that are associated with a devalued pound. These are judgments for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government as a whole to make.
The autumn statement was a positive factor. Industry widely welcomed the measures that it contained, which helped to boost confidence generally among industrialists. There is no doubt, however, that confidence is still brittle. It is important that we show the key decision makers


within industry that economic stability is here for a year or two. We need to keep inflation down. Interest rates should remain as low as possible. We must ensure that red tape is kept to a minimum. Taxes, both in the corporate sector and for individuals, must be kept down. Those are the conditions that brought such success in the 1980s, and I hope and believe that they will bring repeated success in the 1990s. I am confident that we are coming out of the recession. I think that we shall see a recovery in 1993, and I look forward to it.
There is no doubt that the textile industry has the skill and resilience to compete in world markets. However, it needs a level playing field, and that patently does not exist at present. I hope that my right hon. Friend will do everything in his power to ensure that a level playing field is brought about. I know that the expression is heard in every debate on the textile industry, but I make no apology for repeating it. If we have a level playing field, I have no doubt that textile manufacturers in my constituency, in Yorkshire and throughout the country will play their part in creating employment, contributing to our balance of payments and generating wealth for the benefit of the British people.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I welcome the opportunity that has been provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) again to debate the textile industry. I congratulate him on his diligence in pursuing the interests of the textile and clothing industry in the interests of many of his constituents who are involved in it. As my hon. Friend said, it is not the first time that we have had the pleasure of debating the industry, and I hope that it is not the last.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his extremely well-informed comments. They were so well informed that I am tempted to make an embarrassingly short speech—"Hear, hear. I agree"—and resume my place. I know, however, that the Government Whip would find that slightly inconvenient, as you would, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Accordingly, I shall respond more fully to my hon. Friend's comments.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the textile and clothing industry, which has long been a major contributor to our economy. The industry, as we all recognise, has been of particular importance to certain areas. My hon. Friend's area—Yorkshire and Humberside —with its traditional and justly world famous woollen textile industry, is one of those areas.
We all know that the industry has declined in size, but it still accounts for 6 per cent. of United Kingdom manufacturing output. The latest figures that I have show that it employs no fewer than 372,000 people. I hope that my Department reflects its importance. The restructuring of the Department by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade included the establishment of sectoral divisions to improve dialogue between the Department and all sections of industry. That has led to the creation of the textiles and retail division. Among its responsibilities is the specific task of ensuring that we can continue to have a high-level dialogue with the industry, good contact at all levels and a good knowledge of the industry. I hope that this will enable my Department to make a contribution to its continuing success.
In recent years, to meet the challenges of growing competition in home and export markets, there has been significant modernisation within the industry, leading to great improvements in productivity and in quality, to which my hon. Friend referred. I am happy to take up his comments, because, if we do not achieve world levels of quality, we shall not achieve success in export markets. I pay tribute to the improved quality that the industry has achieved.
In addition to improved productivity and quality, the industry has shown a great improvement in its ability to respond quickly to changes in customer needs, whether those customers are found in the British market or overseas. As a result, our textile and clothing companies are now much better placed to compete against the best in Europe and the world.
I congratulate the industry on the efforts that have led to those changes and on its continuing remarkable success in export markets. Total exports of fibres, textiles and clothing during the first half of 1992 were up 8 per cent. compared with the same period last year. Earnings in Yorkshire and Humberside from wool textile exports in the first nine months of this year were up 9 per cent. on last year. That is an impressive achievement in today's difficult world trading conditions.
My hon. Friend had a lot to say about a subject of great importance to the industry—the GATT Uruguay round. There is perhaps no other industry to which a successful outcome of the negotiations is more important than the textile and clothing industry. The Edinburgh Council stated the Community's commitment to an early, comprehensive and balanced agreement to the Uruguay agreement. The OECD has estimated that this could add nearly $200 billion to annual world trade. That would be of immense benefit to all industries, not just the textile and clothing industry.
A successful outcome of the round will entail agreement on the phasing out over a 10-year period of the multi-fibre arrangement, which at present provides protection for the clothing and textile industries in developed countries., Under those proposals, developed countries would, at least once every two years, be obliged to identify a range of textiles and of clothing products to be removed from the MFA quota regime. Quotas for those products not yet integrated into GATT will be progressively increased.
The draft agreement permits safeguard action against imports that threaten injury to domestic production. In other words, quotas can be reimposed on goods that threaten to damage our home industry. In return for phasing out the MFA, the Uruguay round will bring significant benefits to all industries, but particularly the textile and clothing industry. Those benefits include something of great importance—strengthened rules and disciplines governing the behaviour of all GATT members, including developing countries. As my hon. Friend will know, happily, an increasing number of countries have become subscribers to GATT.
I should like to highlight three points of particular importance concerning subsidies and anti-dumping. First, the Government and British industry have long been concerned about the potentially trade-distorting effects of foreign Governments' subsidies—a matter to which my hon. Friend understandably referred. The Uruguay round envisages the elimination of direct export subsidies and others that clearly distort or impede trade, while permitting domestic subsidies that demonstrably do not


affect trade. Those provisions, it is true, do not go as far as we and our industry would have liked, but they represent a significant improvement on the current GATT subsidies code, which imposes effectively no obligations on developing countries. That is progress on subsidies, and also on safeguards, where there are also proposals that will benefit United Kingdom industries.
Safeguard action is different from anti-dumping, in that it presumes that the goods in question have been fairly traded. Thus, it is right that stringent conditions should be met before a country can take safeguard action under the GATT regulations. The GATT secretary-general's text that is being considered establishes adequate disciplines and sets limits on the periods over which action may he taken.
There is also a clause that allows for provisional safeguard action to be taken where delay would cause damage that would be difficult later to repair. The main advantage of the proposed new code is that it establishes better disciplines and greater transparency without allowing other countries to take indiscriminate or arbitrary action against our exports. That would clearly not be in our interests.
When the negotiations stopped in late 1990, anti-dumping was one of the sectors on which agreement was a long way off. There is much to be welcomed in the secretary-general's text, which attempts to strike a balance between conflicting interests. It contains no specific provisions on the dumping of textile and clothing products but it is intended to cover all products. One proposal in the code that should help the clothing and textile industries is the provision for the investigating authorities to employ sampling techniques where large numbers of exporters are involved. As my hon. Friend will know, rapid changes in the exact description of products has made the application of anti-dumping procedures to textiles particularly difficult. This proposal should help to speed up investigations.
My hon. Friend, quite understandably, had a lot to say about tariffs, and I entirely share his view that there are too many tariffs in the world at unacceptable levels. The Uruguay round is concerned with tariffs, and the textile and clothing industry is equally concerned with the current tariff situation. The outcome of the tariff negotiations, especially those being conducted bilaterally between the Community and the United States, will have a significant impact on the export prospects of those industries. British textile exports to non-EC destinations far too often face prohibitive tariff barriers, as my hon. Friend pointed out. Some exports to the United States face duty rates of up to 36 per cent.
The tariff negotiations are still in process. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that a reduction in textile tariffs, especially those in the United States and certain developing countries, is a priority for Britain. We shall urge on the Community that it continues to make this its priority in the market access part of the negotiations. We have constantly made clear, particularly to the United States, that we expect big reductions in the peak tariff, especially those on textile exports.
The British industry's view of the prospective package of MFA phase-out, coupled with strengthened GATT rules and disciplines and reductions in tariffs, was given

some months ago by the chairman of the Apparel, Knitting and Textiles Alliance with which, I am happy to say, the Government have maintained close links throughout the negotiations. The chairman wrote that, while the textiles and clothing industry was disappointed with some aspects of the proposed agreement, it was nevertheless the best on offer, and better than other alternatives that would not deal with the problem of trade distortions.
The Government share that assessment. The overall settlement in prospect, from the textile industry viewpoint, is certainly not perfect, but it contains a range of positive features and offers the best way forward for integrating textiles and clothing trade into the GATT system on an orderly and gradual basis. The British industry is rightly continuing to press for the best possible outcome in the tariff negotiations, and I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are striving to ensure that that is achieved.
My hon. Friend referred to the temporary renewal of the MFA, pending the conclusion of the Uruguay round negotiations. The Community's bilateral agreements with supplier countries are due to run out at the end of this year. The delay in reaching agreement on the Uruguay round has made it necessary to renew the MFA and agreements under it. The Community has now reached agreement with 12 supplier countries on terms within the strict mandate given to the Commission. The Commission hopes to have reached agreement with all MFA suppliers by the end of the year. My Department is keeping the industry closely informed during the process of these negotiations.
Another important subject to which my hon. Friend referred is state aid. I fully agree with him on the importance of keeping up pressure on the Commission and our Community partners to ensure that the European Community state aid rules are rigorously applied so as to ensure fair competition throughout the Community. I am afraid that, as my hon. Friend said, there have been a number of violations of the rules in the textile industry and we have frequently made recommendations to the Commission both about the general issue and about particular cases.
We have secured an important provision in the Maastricht treaty to enable the European Court of Justice to fine member states that fail to comply with their obligations under the state aid rules. Industry has been commendably vigilant in drawing the Commission's attention to suspected violations of the rules. We encourage industry, through its United Kingdom and EC trade associations, to keep up its efforts in that area. The Government are ready to take up specific cases whenever it seems useful to do so.
A unit in my Department is dedicated to helping industry remove barriers to trade within the EC that should not exist under the single market. It is called the single market compliance unit, and I hope that the industry will not hesitate to contact it if it encounters obstacles that should not exist.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley also referred to the importance of environmental protection measures. He was right to identify those as a potential area of difficulty. I am sure that he will welcome, as I did, the resolution adopted at the recent European Community Industry Council calling for the costs and benefits of proposed environmental measures to be properly assessed before adoption. The resolution also called for an even-handed enforcement of environmental standards in


all EC countries. Those will be welcome words to many in British industry. Again, the Government are ready to take up cases where there is evidence that failure by other member states to enforce environmental standards risks distorting trade.
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have several environmental grant schemes for research, development and demonstration of new environmental technology. One of those, the environmental management option scheme, known as DEMOS, supports the adoption of environmental technologies and best practice techniques, which offer wide environmental benefits. Under DEMOS, my Department is working with the Textile Finishers Association on a project to define best practice technology for waste minimisation and effluent treatment in the textile dying and finishing industry. My Department is providing £145,000 towards total project costs of £290,000 over 18 months. I hope that the industry will welcome that provision because that sector of the industry has problems with environmental protection rules.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the three-times rule covering attendance at trade fairs. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and I are aware of the concerns in the textile and clothing industry about the rule under which companies may receive British Overseas Trade Board assistance for participating in overseas trade fairs no more than three times in any one market, apart from the United States, Germany and Japan. However, I am not sure whether the position of the textile and clothing industry is unique, and the limitations on the budget may make it difficult to implement the change that the industry would wish to see. We are nevertheless always interested to consider suggestions from industry of ways to improve our services to exporters.
I shall think carefully about the point that my hon. Friend made. The operation of aid to exhibitions and fairs will come up for review next year, and I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade takes note of the comments that my hon. Friend made.
The industry is already a major recipient of export support provided through BOTB. During 1992–93, we expect no fewer than 1,350 textile and clothing companies to exhibit at 45 overseas trade shows with the help of support from my Department valued at £1.6 million. In addition, more than £.100,000 will be provided to assist the industry through inward and outward missions targeted at important export markets. Those figures are clear evidence of the industry's strong commitment to exporting and to the effectiveness of industry and trade promotion groups such as the British Knitting and Clothing Export Council and the National Wool Textile Export Corporation.
My hon. Friend referred to communication between companies in the industry and our overseas posts. I agree that such communication is extremely important, but the issue is not unique to the industry under discussion. I hope that I can say that, for the most part, good communication now exists. I am convinced that all our overseas posts are committed and determined to provide a good commercial service to our exporters.
All our overseas posts have trained and experienced commercial staff, tasked to promote the interests of United Kingdom companies and send back commercial intelligence. They are now under the management of the joint directorate which brings together my Department and the Foreign Ofice. In some of our larger posts, where resources permit, some of those commercial officers specialise in

textiles and clothing. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's comments to my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, who will take note of them.
I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend mention deregulation, a subject that is dear to the hearts of all Ministers in my Department. I shall correct him on only one point. He said that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was launching a new campaign. In fact, it is a relaunch. Deregulation requires constant vigilance and we are relaunching a campaign throughout Whitehall to ensure that deregulation is given the priority that it deserves. We wish not to burden industry with unnecessary rules, regulations or red tape but to give it every opportunity to flourish. That is particularly important for small and medium-sized enterprises that find such regulations difficult.
I end as my hon. Friend did by saying a few words about the importance of achieving the right economic climate for the textile and clothing industry, as for every other industry in the country. In his autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out clearly the Government's new framework for economic policy. I share my hon. Friend's view that the statement has provided a further encouragement to confidence through the monetary policies set according to the needs of the domestic economy, the priority to continue to control inflation but, perhaps most positively, as my hon. Friend said, the advantage to the textile and clothing industry of lower interest rates—not just the recent reduction of 1 per cent., worth another £1 billion off British industry's interest bills, but also the £9 billion already saved as a result of previous reductions.
I share my hon. Friend's view of the importance of the industry and assure him that my Department will continue to help by deregulation, help to exporters, and direct dialogue with the industry. I look forward to further occasions to debate this important industry and hope that we shall then have an opportunity to congratulate the industry again on further export success, further improvements in productivity, further improvements in quality and further improvements in its ability to meet consumers' demands.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will have observed, something has arisen this morning that has caused great concern to Scottish Members of Parliament. Only this morning on the Order Paper, the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) put down a question to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland asking when he intends to announce the outcome of the current applications for NHS trust status in Scotland and whether he will make a statement. We have learnt that a written answer is to be given to that question later today and that there is to be no public announcement, yet we know—the Scottish press is already aware of it—that no fewer than eight of those hospitals are to be announced today, with a further announcement next week on another six.
That is utterly disgraceful. The whole of Scotland has expressed its disagreement with trust status for its hospitals. Communities and patients have expressed their disagreement. Furthermore, the Health Select Committee only recently expressed grave disquiet about the performance of the trust status hospitals in England. Yet the Government are not only pressing ahead but doing it in a utterly hole-and-corner manner because they are too


gutless to come to the Chamber and express their wish to do so. Can we demand that a Minister comes to the Chamber at 12 o'clock to answer questions on the matter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I have listened carefully to what the hon. Lady had to say. I can sense from the support that is being expressed from behind her that there is real strength of feeling on the matter. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Lady—

Mr. Gordon McMaster: Ministers did not even listen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Treasury Bench is occupied. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) will know that matters of state are nothing to do with the Chair. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard and listened attentively, because it is obviously important.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that they are new points of order.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Further to the point of order. Although the Victoria infirmary has been mentioned in the press releases, there has been no mention of Rutherglen maternity hospital in my constituency, which is linked to the Victoria. Surely it is wrong that people who have worked there and those who are served by those two hospitals have no information from the Government about what the future holds for them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That would be part of the content of any statement, if one should be made. It is nothing to do with the Chair.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will take one more point of order, provided that it is not on the same matter.

Mr. McMaster: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a disgrace that the press knew of the decisions last night and certainly before the House knew? Is it not a disgrace that this unwanted policy has been forced on an unwilling people by an unelected Government?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Respect for the Chair is appreciated. These are matters of policy which have nothing to do with the Chair. It is 11.1 and this day is traditionally for Back Benchers. I call Mr. David Trimble.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order on the matter. I call Mr. Trimble.

Mr. David Trimble: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that hon. Members feel very worried about the matter. That is self evident. However, three hon. Members have made a

virtually identical point of order. Hon. Members' views are clear. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard them and they do not need to be repeated. The Chair has now ruled.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have called Mr. David Trimble.

Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm to me that Madam Speaker has not stipulated that the announcement of any new trust hospitals should be made in the House of Commons? Several hospitals have become trust hospitals but the announcements were not made here in the House. We saw how Scottish Members suddenly came into the Chamber all at the same time just before 11 am. Is it not clear that this is a publicity stunt? It is an abuse of the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for Madam Speaker to produce an opinion on any aspect of Government policy. Madam Speaker is here to ensure that there is considered debate on the matters which are scheduled for debate. I have taken three points of order on a specific matter which is outside the powers of the Chair.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is a different point of order, I will take it, but I shall listen attentively. Time is coming out of the debate of the hon. Member who has the next Adjournment debate.

Mr. Foulkes: I understand that an announcement is to be made today in a written answer on eight hospital trusts but that others, including the North Ayrshire, and the community trust in Ayrshire, will not be announced today. Apparently they will be announced next week, not even in a written reply—such is the insult to the House. That is of grave concern, particularly because the Minister of State, Scottish Office, Lord Fraser, abruptly cancelled a meeting with me on Tuesday at which we were to discuss the matter. The Government are clearly rushing the measure through against the wishes of the Scottish people. We must have an opportunity to have a statement and a debate on the issue as quickly as possible.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was not a new point of order.

Mr. Foulkes: It was.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With respect, it was not. The hon. Gentleman must accept that I have some understanding of these matters, and that was not a new point of order. I expect that all the others are not new points of order. I urge hon. Gentlemen to understand that today is a special day for certain hon. Members who have worked hard to prepare a case about another important part of the United Kingdom.
I plead with hon. Members to understand that they are taking time out of that debate and no new point of order has been made. Hon. Members have put their case forcefully. The hon. Member for Maryhill put the case with considered deference to the House and showed that


the matter was vital to her and other Scottish Members. She put it with such strength that I hope that other hon. Members will resume their seats and I can call Mr. David Trimble.

Mr. Trimble: I have some sympathy with the views that have been expressed by Scottish Members—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is no good hon. Gentlemen—

Mr. McMaster: And hon. Ladies.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask hon. Members to recognise that this is the season of good will—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not for these hospitals."] Order. I have now heard three hon. Gentlemen sitting on the fourth row say, "Not for these hospitals." Clearly, their point of order is identical to the one that we have already discussed.

Mr. George Galloway: On a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No. The hon. Gentleman said that it was on hospitals—

Mr. Galloway: It is a procedural matter. It will take you 30 seconds to hear it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have ruled, and I expect some recognition that I am standing here in the absence of Madam Speaker. I ask hon. Gentlemen to recognise that I listened attentively to the hon. Member for Maryhill and to two further hon. Gentlemen, who made the same point of order and did so with conviction. There is no point in hon. Members continually making the same point of order.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will take the final point of order from Mr. John McFall.

Mr. John McFall: There is an intensity of feeling on the Scottish Benches because yesterday we spent five hours closeted with Scottish Ministers in the House in Scottish questions and then in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill until half past eight. They all disappeared and we were told about the decision last night. The intensity of feeling is great—so much so that we have consulted with our Chief Whip this morning who, through the usual channels, is trying to arrange for the Minister to come to the House at half past two this afternoon to make an announcement and be decent and respectful to Parliament.
It is with that in mind that we are pushing the matter this morning. Given that information, can the Treasury Bench tell us whether any advance has been made so that we can have a statement and the Scottish people exercise their right to know exactly what is happening in this House of Parliament?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has driven home his point with considerable conviction. He mentioned that negotiations were continuing and hoped for something at half past two. Let us see what happens then.

Mrs. Irene Adams: On a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Michael Connarty: On a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman are now stretching my patience.

Mrs. Adams: On a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must resume her seat. It is no good her standing up and saying that she has a new point of order when I am standing. I am sorry. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) made it clear that negotiations were proceeding and hon. Members are seeking a debate at 2.30 pm. Let us see what happens. Now we must move on—

Mr. Galloway: I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.

Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw.

Question negatived.

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Trimble: I was about to observe—

Mr. Galloway: I spy strangers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I put the Question—

Mr. Galloway: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. He has been in the House long enough to know that. The hon. Gentleman may not understand the procedure. I put the Question. There were no ayes, but there were noes.

Mr. Galloway: You may not have heard them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should pay more attention if he is moving a motion.

Mr. Galloway: In that case, I will move it again. I spy strangers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may wish to move the motion again, but he is not allowed to do so under Standing Orders. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies to recognise that today is an important day for all Back Benchers. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, on a further point of order, made it clear that he was seeking a statement and that negotiations were proceeding. I suspect that the hon. Members who are interfering will undermine that. Certainly, undermining the Chair does not help hon. Members. Hon. Members must recognise that I stand here in place of Madam Speaker. I do not think that hon. Members, least of all today, will want to upset Madam Speaker and challenge the Chair. I think that we can now move on to the hon. Member for Upper Bann.

Terrorism (Media Coverage)

Mr. David Trimble: I must tell Scottish Members that they should come to Northern Ireland. We do not even get written answers. More than eight hospital trusts were announced recently and we were not given the courtesy of a written answer. Although I have some sympathy for what Scottish Members were saying, they should understand the difficulties elsewhere. In view of what has happened, I hope that there is a concept of injury time here; otherwise, I am afraid that it will come out of the Government's time.
The question of media coverage of terrorism, especially terrorism in Northern Ireland, is huge, but in the limited time available I intend to cover only a couple of aspects' of it. I realise that "media" includes all media, including print media, but we normally use the term with regard to the broadcast media, especially television. Special considerations apply to television.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he makes a fair point. The next debate will start five minutes later than scheduled.

Mr. Trimble: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The special position of the television media was recognised by the Government when they imposed broadcasting restrictions, which were imposed by the Home Secretary in 1988. Those broadcasting restrictions have been criticised as imposing some sort of restriction on free speech and reporting. Of course, they are nothing of the sort. They do not conflict with the European convention on human rights because that convention permits restrictions in the interests of, among other things, national security and territorial integrity. Clearly, both those restrictions apply to the situation in Northern Ireland.
The restrictions do not prevent the reporting of the situation in Northern Ireland. Broadcasters have had no problem whatever in finding surrogates for terrorists who will explain the so-called point of view of those terrorists. The problem with the broadcasting restrictions is quite the opposite. The restrictions have become ineffective because they contain loopholes which do not appear on the face of the directive. The loopholes were created by the Home Office.
At the outset in 1988, a senior Home Office official gave guidance to the broadcasting authorities and, in the course of that, created two loopholes. The loopholes are set out in a letter which appears in the law reports of the case of Brind and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department. The first loophole is that
the notice permits the showing of a film or still picture of the initiator speaking the words together with a voice-over account of them, whether in paraphrase or verbatim.
Of course, we see the picture of the terrorist and a skilled actor speaks the terrorist's words in circumstances in which it is impossible to tell whether one is dealing with the actual terrorist speaking. One must often look and listen carefully to see whether such broadcasts are within the loophole or breach the directive.
The second loophole is also referred to in the letter:
A member of an organisation cannot be held to represent that organisation in all its daily activities. Whether at any

particular instance he is representing the organisation concerned will depend upon the nature of the words spoken and the particular context.
That loophole has been deliberately abused to enable broadcasters to broadcast terrorists when they are nominally dealing with other matters. The extent of the abuse in such circumstances is getting bad.
When we examine the other jurisdiction within the British Isles—that of the Republic of Ireland—it is ironic that we find a much better example. As the Minister knows, the Republic operates exactly the same broadcasting restrictions. The directive issued under section 31 of the Broadcasting Act in the Republic of Ireland is identical to the directive issued in the United Kingdom.
The same loopholes do not exist in the Republic. That was graphically illustrated in a report in yesterday's Irish Times, in which RTE refused to broadcast a member of Sinn Fein in his capacity as chairman of the strike committee, simply because he was a member of Sinn Fein. There is a strike at his place of employment at present. The gentleman is going to court to compel RTE to broadcast him. That is a clear example of how the directive should be interpreted and applied. The directive and the words are the same. That case is an example of the broadcasting authorities in the Republic of Ireland behaving responsibly. That is in clear contrast to the way in which the broadcasters in the United Kingdom are behaving irresponsibly by extending the loopholes.
Obviously, it is my submission that the loopholes should be closed and the damage repaired. We have raised the matter before. As the Minister knows, on 7 December my hon Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) raised the most recent and flagrant example of abuse. A Sinn Fein councillor was interviewed about a terrorist incident on the supposition that he was a bystander who had some knowledge of it. The councillor did not witness the accident. He did not live nearby; he had come on the scene several minutes later. He was given the opportunity to broadcast the Sinn Fein view of the incident.
That was a clear breach of the directive. The question is: what will be done about it? Unfortunately, the Secretary of State for National Heritage said that it
is a matter for the broadcasters themselves. They must decide whether a person is speaking on behalf of an organisation … or is speaking in a different capacity."—[Official Report, 7 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 577.]
What is the point of having a directive if no effort is made to enforce it? With the exception of the question of the loopholes which should be plugged, there is a question of enforcement. If we have the opportunity, I should like to hear the views of the Minister on enforcement. If no precise method of enforcement were set out in the Act or the charter, Her Majesty's Government would have no difficulty obtaining injunctions to restrain broadcasting authorities. There are clear and repeated examples of breaches.
Over and above all that, there is the question why broadcasters behave irresponsibly. Instead of respecting the directive and acting more in accordance with the spirit of the directive and the needs of society generally, why do broadcasters seek to extend and broaden the loopholes?
Obviously, that question broadens into criticism of broadcasters generally. The programme makers and broadcasters in Northern Ireland which we deal with directly—BBC Northern Ireland and Ulster Television—


behave with considerable responsibility, care and sensitivity. I think that the same is true of those which operate in the Republic of Ireland.
Our experience over the years is that the problem lies specifically with the television journalists who operate from London. They tend to fly into Northern Ireland, usually with their minds made up. They are anxious to make their reputations, and the bigger the sensation the better it is for them. They then fly out to enjoy their publicity without regard for those who must stay and perhaps pick up the tab. We are especially conscious of that matter and the lack of balance in broadcasting. The London media seem to think that the only sides which exist are often the Government and the terrorists. They forget that other sides are also involved.
In the past 22 years, I cannot recall many programmes which have dealt accurately, or even sympathetically, with the view of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. One honourable exception was the recent broadcast on Remembrance day dealing with the aftermath of the Enniskillen bombing. However, that programme stands out as an exception. Few programmes have dealt with the matter in a balanced way. Rather than deal with general issues, I want to focus on a specific matter.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend accept that broadcasters have not only acted in such a dishonourable way but have spent hours interviewing some of us as representatives of the Unionist community and then refused to put us on the programme because it did not square with what they were trying to say? Will he also confirm that the person interviewed in relation to the Falls did not even come from the Falls so could not have been said to represent that community?
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should now examine the regulations, especially when 25 per cent. of programmes are made by outside programme makers and when there has been evidence of people being paid to do things that have not actually happened? There has been a tragic death as a result of a French television crew doing that.

Mr. Trimble: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's comments, and I shall add to what he said towards the end of his intervention.
I said that I would focus on a couple of examples of TV bias and sheer downright bad journalism. One example—it brings in the print media—comes from last weekend's Sunday Times and concerns Mr. Ronan Bennett, who was recently given almost an entire page in The Guardian in which he told us what great idealists the members of the IRA were. I believe that that article has caused some misgivings in that paper, and rightly so.
The article omitted to express Mr. Bennett's indebtedness to the single-judge Diplock courts in Northern Ireland. In the early 1970s, a single judge sitting in a Diplock court acquitted Mr. Bennett on a murder charge, displaying a lawyer's scrupulousness to the possibility of doubt in regard to the identification evidence of a witness. Many people doubt whether an ordinary person would have shared the same degree of doubt.
Last weekend, The Sunday Times told us that the BBC had commissioned two plays from Mr. Bennett. I wonder whether Mr. Bennett will use those plays to pay his debt to

the Northern Ireland legal system. I suspect that he will use them instead to attack that system and to produce the usual propaganda in favour of republican terrorism.
Is that the sort of thing the BBC should be doing and the way in which it should be commissioning plays? But, then, it is in character. After all, it commissioned a play by Danny Morrison, one of whose jobs at the time was to act as press officer to Sinn Fein. Mr. Morrison's recent conviction for terrorist activities confirmed suspicions that another of his jobs was to be on the IRA's so-called army council, a suspicion that at the time was well known to everyone. It must have been known to the BBC.
But the main example on which I shall concentrate today is a programme that was broadcast by Channel 4 in October 1991 as part of the "Dispatches" series and entitled "The Committee". I raised the matter in a debate on Northern Ireland on 10 June and I make no apology for returning to it, partly because it was such a bad programme in sheer journalistic terms and partly because some of the matters that were raised clearly referred to my constituency, and there is a real concern in that respect.
Nearly all the background film used in the programme, especially in the crucial second half, was recognisably located in the north Armagh area. Northern Ireland is a small place, so people know the places being shown and quickly recognise them. There was also reference in the programme to terrorist incidents in my constituency, so it is appropriate that I should raise the matter now.
There were two aspects of the programme. The first dealt with a body that was established a few years ago in Northern Ireland calling itself the Ulster Independence Committee, generally referred to at home as the independence committee. The committee exists to promote what is in itself the perfectly legitimate idea that Northern Ireland, having been treated so badly by this House over the last two decades, should now seek independence.
The committee has advanced that view by entirely lawful means, notably when its chairman, the Rev. Hugh Ross, opposed me in the 1990 Upper Bann by-election. Needless to say, the Ulster Unionist party dealt effortlessly with the challenge. Even so, Hugh Ross exeeded the vote of the much publicised Conservative challenger by a margin of 50 per cent.
The second, and more sinister, part of the programme alleged that there existed a secret loyalist body, which was sometimes referred to as "the inner circle" but which the programme as a whole identified as "the committee". It was alleged that that secret body masterminded the planning of assassinations of republicans. We were told that the committee consisted of loyalist paramilitaries, politicians, professional men—various professions, including solicitors, were mentioned—and members of the RUC.
In subsequent media comment, the programme has been referred to as alleging collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and the RUC. Those comments and that description of the programme are profoundly objectionable. Even if everything said in the programme were true, which it was not, it would still not prove collusion between terrorists and the RUC. The phrase "the RUC" refers to the organisation as a whole. Does anybody think that the force officially colludes with terrorists? Would anyone suggest that Hugh Annesely goes to such meetings or sends his deputies to them? Even if the programme were true, it would only show that certain individual members of the force are behaving illegally and reprehensibly. It is a small


but important point, because responsible media take care to get things right and not to give a false impression by the use of careless language.
My first range of objections to the programme concerns the juxtaposition of the two parts. The programme entitled "The Committee" referred to two committees, one of which I shall call "the independence committee" and the other—as I say, it is sometimes referred to as "the inner circle"—I shall call simply "the committee."
It was easy for the viewer to miss the distinction between the two bodies. There was a brief debate about the programme later in Channel 4's "Right to Reply" programme, and I raised the matter with a senior commissioning editor of Channel 4, Liz Forgan. She claimed that the two committees had been clearly separated in the programme; but I recall no statement which made that separation. Indeed, in addition to the confusion that would naturally be engendered by the juxtaposition, some of the graphics used for the "the committee" part of the programme had as its background the flag that has been promoted by the independence committee as the proposed flag for an independent Ulster. That clearly linked the two.
Indeed, the programme as a whole linked the two, and I have no doubt that anybody watching it would easily have confused the two. The question is whether that confusion was intended by the programme makers or was merely coincidental. Whichever it was, deliberate or negligent, it was the clearest error of judgment that could have had, and may yet have, potentially dangerous consequences.
The independence committee is an open body and there is no secret about its members. The "Dispatches" programme said that "the committee" included lawyers. As I say, Northern Ireland is a small community. It was immediately apparent to informed people in Northern Ireland that the lawyer on "the committee" could be only one of two people. Only one lawyer is on the independence committee. I know him; he is a former member of the Ulster Unionist party. Unfortunately, he left the party despairing for the future of the Union. I believe he is wrong, but he is a responsible person and not the type of man who would be involved in the sort of activities on which the Channel 4 programme was focusing. He contacted me the morning after the programme was broadcast and was very concerned about his personal security because of the way in which he had been implicitly identified.
The other prime candidate is a north Armagh solicitor who specialises in criminal work and is well known for his loyalist views. He is a former political activist, but he, too, is a responsible person who I know would not be involved with terrorism. He did not see the programme, but he told me that when he attended court the next day—because he had some cases running in the local courts—he wondered why people were staring at him with a strange expression. He was horrified to discover that all the people present thought that he had been unmasked the night before as the brains behind a murder gang. I am happy to say that he has commenced, or is about to commence, libel proceedings in the matter, and I earnestly hope that there will be a just result.
Those two people were not mentioned by name, unlike the chairman of the independence committee, the Rev. Hugh Ross, who was interviewed at length. None of those interviews or questions related to a possible involvement with terrorism, but he was outraged when he saw the programme and noted that he was being linked to a paramilitary committee involved in the planning of terrorism. He said afterwards that, had he had any idea of the accusations that would be made on the programme, he would have made clear to the interviewer the position of the independence committee with regard to terrorism.
On the "Right to Reply" programme, Liz Forgan tried to avoid the obvious charge that Channel 4 had engaged in character assassination by saying that the reason why the Rev. Hugh Ross should not be given the opportunity to deal with his views on terrorism was that the nature of the programme changed after the interview with him. She might believe that; I do not, and I have good reason for not believing it, as I shall say later, because the picture given to the court in the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Channel 4 and Box shows detailed control by Channel 4 and Box over all stages of the making of the programme. But, even if what she says is true, it is a terrible confession, showing a lack of basic journalistic ethics. To interview a person, change the nature of the programme and broadcast the interview in a totally different context from that originally undertaken for the interview is a quite disgraceful thing to do.
Matters get worse when we come to the other half of the programme dealing with "the committee". As evidence for the existence of that committee three things were brought forward. The evidence consisted of an interview with a gentleman known as Billy Wright who, if I remember correctly, did not actually refer to "the committee", but talked generally of the motives of loyalist paramilitaries. Although he did not acutally confess to personal involvement in any murders, the programme, and indeed Mr. Wright himself, left the impression that he was engaged in paramilitary activities.
I hold no brief for Mr. Wright. I am told that he is a gangster who tries to cloak his crimes with political motivation, and, to give colour to that motivation, occasionally gets involved in sectarian crimes about which he then boasts to journalists, giving interviews to them regularly. Whether he has committed all the offences of which he boasts I do not know, but I can hazard, a fair guess as to why he collaborated with "Dispatches" and gave credence to the accusation that some RUC officers collude with paramilitaries. The allegation, if true or if believed and acted upon, would have a disruptive effect on the police and reduce their effectiveness. He has a clear interest in harming the police force.
I note in passing that Lord Justice Woolf, in the legal action to which I referred, said himself that the immediate effect of the programme would be to undermine the confidence of the public, particularly in Northern Ireland, in the RUC. That was the effect, perhaps even the objective, of the programme. Incidentally, Mr. Wright was clearly named in the programme, which is why I have used his name. I am very conscious of the dangers of naming people in this context, and I do not intend to name other participants in the programme, although the names of some of them are very well known indeed and are on the record. But I do not think that it is desirable, and it is not necessary to do so.
The other evidence in the programme was an interview with a Northern Ireland journalist, a native of Northern Ireland, who, immediately after the programme, protested to the local media that the parts of the interview that were shown seriously misrepresented his views. Whether that gentleman's protests were ever broadcast in this part of the United Kingdom or given any publicity here is of course another matter.
Finally, the piece de resistance was an anonymous interview, with a figure seated in a room, silhouetted against a window. We were given the impression that that gentleman, who talked in detail about "the committee", was a member of a loyalist paramilitary organisation, perhaps a senior member of the Ulster Volunteer Force or the Ulster Freedom Fighters. "Dispatches" assured us that the information contained in the programme was genuine. The "Right to Reply" commissioning editor said that they had undertaken exhaustive report research and stood over the programme.
On 10 June, I said:
What was produced on screen in the way uf evidence was singularly unconvincing.
After the programme, in an attempt to bolster their case, those involved in the production of 'Dispatches' supplied the RUC with names, some of whom they said were members of the inner circle. Some of the names were not even in the RUC, although those involved with 'Dispatches' said they were. I believe that the RUC is satisfied that none of those names was so involved
in the way suggested by the programme. I went on to state:
If the programme makers had consulted any reputable journalist operating in Ulster, they would have been told that the allegations were fantasies.
I suspect that the programme involved more than gullibility. The person who made it was no wide-eyed innocent coming to Ulster for the first time. He was a native of Ulster who in his student days was associated with extreme Republican politics."—[Official Report, 10 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 406–07.]
The police acted on the matter, as we know. Their own inquiries satisfied them that there was no police involvement in the matter, and statements were issued by the Chief Constable to that effect. In order to obtain more information about the existence or possible existence of "the committee", steps were taken to require the disclosure of the sources. "Dispatches" refused, however, to do so, and we had legal actions which eventually culminated in the case of the DPP, Channel 4 and Box, and proceedings in which Channel 4 and Box were fined £75,000 for contempt of court, what some people might regard as a lenient result which indicates—indeed, the judgment indicates it—some sympathy for the dilemma of journalists in such situations.
After the contempt case, a researcher who worked with the programme was charged with perjury, the charge being that, because in the contempt case detailed statements were put in about the making of the programme, and of course such false statements would amount to perjury, charges were then brought. That action was characterised by some in the press as a demonstration of persecution of a programme or a hounding of the programme makers at the instance of the RUC. More recently, the charge of perjury was dropped. The dropping of those charges was interpreted by the researcher and by others as in some way a vindication of this programme and the allegations made on the programe, and there were then renewed calls for an inquiry.
Normally, I would dismiss calls for an inquiry in such a context because they come frequently and they are the

usual next step undertaken by people who are intent on hindering the efforts of the security forces. But in this case I have come to the conclusion that there should be an inquiry—that an inquiry would be useful. An inquiry should look at the original allegations of collusion so as to put the matter beyond doubt. I am quite sure that it will not take long to dispel the smears on the RUC in the programme. The inquiry that I am calling for should focus on the making of the programme and on subsequent events in this rather sorry tale.
The inquiry should look in particular into whether it is normal practice for charges to be dropped before the forensic report on matters which are not just relevant to the charges but are central to the charges had been received. I am told that such action is rather unprecedented and that normally, when one asks for a forensic report relating to a charge, one waits until one gets the forensic report before evaluating the charge. I am told that in this case charges were dropped before the forensic report was available. The inquiry might look into the reason for that decision and inquire whether any influence was brought to bear in what was a rather unusual decision.
In the course of the perjury action, some notes and documents were obtained by the police that relate to the making of the programme. In those notes there is reference to a hitch-hiker. The inquiry that I am suggesting might look into an astonishing report that reached me a few days ago that the person in the notes referred to as the hitch-hiker was walking on a road outside Castledawson when a car stopped and out of the car got persons connected with the making of the programme "Dispatches". They spoke to him, and, in return for offers of money and other things, induced him to take part in an interview in which he sat in a darkened room and made various statements that had been supplied to him by the programme makers.
That is the person who in the programme was portrayed as loyalist paramilitary. The identity of that person is known and it is actually on the public record. I will not give it here because it would only cause more embarrassment to him if the matter were given wider circulation, but it is available in the papers relating to the programme.
That gentleman, of course, is not in either the UVF or the UFF. I am told that the police are satisfied that there is no suspicion of his involvement in terrorism. Indeed, the gentleman concerned is a member of the Romam Catholic religion and is consequently unlikely to be involved in loyalist paramilitary activity. He is not suspected of being involved in any other paramilitary activity. He might have thought at the time that participating in that charade at the time was a bit of a joke. Of course it is reprehensible to have done so, but his life, I understand, has now been disrupted as a result of it. I am told that he is presently in hiding.
My advice to him, if these words should reach him, is that he should come forward and tell the truth about the matter. He should let the matter fully come out into the open. I am not aware of the circumstances, but in the statements given to the court by the DPP and Box, a detailed picture began to emerge of the making and control of the programme. We are told that there was control by Channel 4 and by Box at every stage, to an unusual degree. It is very strange that such a degree of control could be imposed without the charade being detected.
It may be that the charade was not as serious as first meets the eye. Perhaps there was a source A and that source was reluctant to appear before the television cameras in any form—and that the hitch-hiker was recruited to act as part of a dramatic reconstruction. That is the most favourable construction that I can put on the facts. If that was the case, it should have been said clearly. Incidentally, my information comes from sources that I consider to be reliable, but I would like a full inquiry to verify the matter—just in case I have been misled in any way. I have been assured by different sources that the police have in their possession statements from some of those involved in the programme's production, in which they admit that it was fabricated.
Earlier, I referred to the "Right to Reply" programme in which Channel 4's commissioning editor said that it stood by the programme and was certain of its veracity. Did they fully investigate and control the making of that programme? Have they subsequently, in the light of the legal proceedings, investigated matters—particularly with regard to the perjury fiasco, when I understand that certain matters in papers relating to that case should put people on notice about suspect aspects of the programme? Do Channel 4 still regard the programme as embodying the kind of quality journalism that it and any other television company should be involved in?
Channel 4 has invested financial and other capital in the programme. I recall seeing pictures of Sir Richard Attenborough and Michael Grade outside the law courts vowing to support the programme and if necessary go down with it. Did they know at the time that they were defending and supporting a fabrication? Do they know that now? If so, will they support an investigation?
Behind Channel 4 and Box lies the origin of the programme—the person who sold the concept to the programme makers. I refer not to the producer, but to the debate of 10 June. The person whom I suspect was the originator of the programme is a native of Northern Ireland. I understand that he now claims that his life is under threat. I cannot assess the validity of that claim, but I hope that it is as false as some of the others that he peddled through the programme. I understand that he is currently engaged in trying to sell another idea to programme makers in London. Will they be fooled again?
I repeat my request for a full investigation, and ask what steps the Minister proposes to take, to check against such manipulation of the media. Yesterday's issue of The Irish Times also contains a story with correspondence between Dublin and the central committee of the international department of the Communist party of the Soviet Union in which people invite financial support for an independent programme maker who was intended, among other things, to place programmes with the BBC and Channel 4. That illustrates the danger of manipulation to which my hon. Friend referred earlier, particularly in respect of outside broadcasters. What safeguards are there to be in that regard?
I began by mentioning broadcasting restrictions. Part of the justification for them is that broadcasting differs from the printed media and so requires special measures. I believe that is right, and that principle has relevance to the sorry tale that I have told today. There is a duty not

only to make broadcasting restrictions more effective, but to consider how to prevent such abuse, which only plays into the hands of the enemies of society.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) for providing the opportunity to debate a most important issue and to set out the Government's position. I am delighted to see the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) in their places. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who of course understands well the gravity of the issues, is unable to join us for this debate, but he knows of it and will of course read it. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) is in his place. He will pursue any particularly important Northern Ireland points raised by the hon. Member for Upper Bann.
Media coverage of terrorism in Northern Ireland is an area about which many people feel very strongly. Any area of life which impinges on the question of the freedom of the individual quite rightly rouses passions across the community.
When I talk about the freedom of the individual, I mean not only such issues as the freedom of the press and the right of people to receive information but the right of ordinary people to live ordinary lives without the threat of appalling terrorist crimes, such as that in Oxford street only yesterday.
We cannot allow the terrorists to win the propaganda victory through their criminal activity. Broadcasters must always be sensitive to the danger they face when covering such issues. The media provide the opportunity for the public to see terrorists exposed for what they really are—criminals dedicated to attempting to ruin the lives of ordinary people going about their business, both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Manipulation of a free press by terrorists, allowing them to spread fear and their pernicious doctrines to intimidate the public, is something the media need to guard against. The onus is on editors to find the balance between rightly informing the public and inadvertently being used by terrorist gangs. The Government and the security forces do not regard themselves as above press scrutiny, but they—and the public they serve—have a right to expect that the same standards of investigation, the same professional scepticism, be applied to information emanating from other sources, including those close to terrorists.
First, I will deal with the Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme to which the hon. Member for Upper Bann referred. The programme made a series of allegations concerning the existence of organised collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries through an inner circle. It alleged that Royal Ulster Constabulary officers fed information on targets that assisted the paramilitaries. The programme relied largely, however, on allegations from an unknown source who produced no hard evidence for the claims that he made.
The programme made serious allegations about the integrity of the security forces in Northern Ireland, which the RUC were clearly under a duty to investigate—even if that caused on this occasion a degree of conflict with the


broadcasters. The RUC appointed a senior detective to conduct a full investigation into the allegations. As part of the inquiry, it was concluded that it was necessary to seek to establish the identity of the individual who had made the allegations. The "Dispatches" programme failed to produce significant supporting evidence for the man's claims, so it is obviously difficult for the RUC to investigate further unless the man's identity is established.
Of course, we all have views on the way in which the media should act in matters such as these, but having views does not give the Government the automatic right to intervene in the programming policy of broadcasters, either.
During the period leading up to the issue of the notices on 19 October 1988, the broadcast coverage of events in Northern Ireland had included the appearance of representatives of paramilitary organisations and their political supporters, who used those opportunities as an attempt to justify criminal activities. Such appearances caused widespread offence to viewers and listeners throughout the United Kingdom, particularly after a terrorist crime had been committed.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann raised a number of particular cases where he claims that the broadcasters failed to follow the restrictions. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will follow through those particular cases.
There have from time to time been suggestions that the written press should be subject to restrictions in this area. I do not agree. As I said, it is vital that any restrictions, however narrow, should not restrict the public's right to information. We have no plans to widen the scope of the notices to include any restrictions on the written press.
As with so many matters of this sort, a careful balance must be struck between the need for the Government to secure the rights and freedoms of society as a whole and the rights of the individual. That is explicitly recognised in the universal declaration of human rights and the very narrow scope of the notices strikes that balance.
May I end with one final point. Terrorists attempt to place themselves above the law and to make themselves accountable to no one but themselves. The role of the media in scrutinising the activities of these criminals is as important as the scrutiny of those who seek to defeat them.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank you for allowing me to raise this further point of order. Has any progress been made since we raised a point of order about an hour ago? Will a Minister or the Leader of the House come to the Chamber to make a public announcement about the disgraceful decision to allow eight hospitals in Scotland to have trust status?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I shall take one point of order at a time. I think that it was about 45 minutes ago that the hon. Lady rose on a point of order. Since that point was raised, I have received no communication from anybody.

Mr. John McAllion: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You rightly said that this is a special day for Back Benchers and that the role of the Chair is to protect Back Benchers. I am a Back Bencher. I see on the front page of my local newspaper,

Dundee's The Courier and Advertiser, that the Government are to award trust status to the national health service hospitals in Dundee. However, no Minister is here to inform me whether that story is accurate or inaccurate. Therefore, I have no means of defending my constituents in Dundee who depend upon the national health service there. How can the Chair protect the interests of Back Benchers against a Government who dismiss us so contemptuously by refusing even to say what their intentions are, when they know that Parliament is about to go into recess for three weeks?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair. The Chair understood that the Opposition spokesman was to make inquiries about further negotiations until 2.30. Since it is only 11.50, perhaps we ought to wait a little longer.

Mr. Alistair Darling: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We certainly do not want to disrupt the proceedings, because this is an important day for Back Benchers. However, am I not right in thinking that Madam Speaker and, before her, Mr. Speaker Weatherill deprecated the practice of Ministers making press statements but not statements to the House? I believe that I am also right in thinking that the Secretary of State for Health for England and Wales has always made a statement to the House about opt-outs.
The Secretary of State for Scotland is in some difficulty, since the Minister with responsibility for health is not a Member of this House but a Member of another place. I am sure that you will appreciate that feelings are running very high indeed today when we hear that a lot of hospitals are to opt out and when we hear, too, that a further announcement is to be made during the recess.
There is to be a press notice next week. In one case, the Royal hospital for sick children in Edinburgh, the public were fraudulently induced to give money to the national health service to help that hospital, for we now discover that that hospital is, in effect, to be turned into a private trust hospital. I hope that those who follow our proceedings, including those Back Benchers who have secured debates today, will understand that we have every right, as Members of Parliament, to ask that Ministers be held accountable in this place; otherwise, there is precious little point in having Parliament at all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I recognise that feelings are running high and I understand why they are running high. I confirm that Madam Speaker has made it clear that she deprecates any statement being made to outside bodies before it is made to the House. It is not for me to judge whether that has happened in this case, but that is the statement she has made.

Mr. George Galloway: The Royal hospital for sick children, Yorkhill, is the jewel in the crown of the Greater Glasgow health board. Its service to the public over many decades has been peerless. It is famous throughout the world. Like the Royal hospital for sick children in Edinburgh, it receives large sums of charitably given money—money given in expectation that that hospital would remain a public hospital. I understand from the front page of the local newspaper of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) that it is to be awarded trust status, thus overriding the wishes


of everyone who works there, of those who have ever used it and of those who have ever uttered a point of view on the matter.
We spent five hours yesterday in the House with Scottish Office Ministers, who must have known that that devastating news was to be released in this way. They did not have the courtesy, either to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the House as a whole or to Opposition Members, to give us an inkling that the announcement was to be made in this outrageous way. Can I ask you to make your view known to those who sit on the Treasury Bench: that they must bring the Minister to the House to answer these points, which are made in all sincerity? Otherwise I feel that we shall be letting our people down—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not being tempted down the threatening route. He knows full well that it is for the Government of the day to decide when and where a statement is to be made. Madam Speaker has made it clear that statements should preferably be made, in her opinion, on the Floor of the House before they are made elsewhere. However, it is not for Madam Speaker to direct the Government or the Opposition to do anything. We are here to try to provide a forum for considered debate. I am afraid that this morning's debate is not scheduled to be Scottish business, although I have now called about seven Scottish Members.

Mr. John Home Robertson: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has come into the Chamber for the second round. He was not here for the first. I hope that the hon. Gentleman intends to raise a new point of order.

Mr. Home Robertson: Yes. May I draw your attention to the exchanges yesterday on the Floor of the House? It was put to Madam Speaker that the government of Scotland and of this House was being brought into disrepute in the eyes of the people of Scotland by the way that Scottish affairs are treated. Any number of Ministers and Conservative Members of Parliament were willing to come to the House to raise frivolous points about Monklands district council, yet when major decisions are being taken about the future of the national health service a Minister cannot be found. Who is running Scotland? Who is meant to be in control of them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Certainly not Madam Speaker.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that we need to take this matter any further now. Hon. Gentlemen have made their views extremely clear this morning. I must now call the hon. Members—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I heard the Opposition spokesman say that further efforts were being made to get hold of a Minister before 2.30. It is only just coming up to noon. I suggest that those negotiations continue so that we can get on with the debates and protect the interests of Back Benchers.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), and then it must be the turn of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway).

Mr. John McFall: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to my earlier point of order, I mentioned to you that our Chief Whip was negotiating with the usual channels. As yet, there has been no reply. I do not know whether that is an act of discourtesy or whether it means that negotiations are still going on. None the less, it means that we are still hopeful that someone will come to the Chamber to make a statement. I ask you to use your good offices to press those who are sitting on the Treasury Bench to make sure that we get that statement before the end of business today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Those who sit on the Treasury Bench will have heard that negotiations are taking place. I am firmly stuck in this Chair for the moment. Therefore, I call the hon. Member for Croydon, South.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall take no more points of order on this matter.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. McAllion: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already called the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McAllion: I spy strangers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot spy strangers for a second time.

Mr. McAllion: This is the first occasion on which I have moved that I spy strangers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I am on my feet. May I also respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a look at "Erksine May"? [Interruption.] Order. I must ask the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) not to carry on an argument while I am talking.

Mr. Eric Clarke: . I am sorry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am most grateful. It is a rule of the House that the House can spy strangers only once during a day's sitting. That motion was moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and was negatived. Therefore, that particular route is now closed. I call the hon. Member for Croydon, South.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall take no more points of order.

Mr. McAllion: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I spy strangers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must refer the hon. Gentleman to page 172 of "Erskine May", which I took the precaution of reading while he was out having a coffee.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This must be the last point of order, then.

Mr. Hood: May I explain—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) wants to intervene and interrupt his hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) is, I hope, raising a new point of order.

Mr. Hood: Yes. I heard about the previous points of order while I was dealing with my constituency correspondence. I apologise for not having been here then, but that was the reason for my absence. While I was with my secretary dealing with my correspondence, I received two telephone calls asking me whether it was true that Stone House hospital and Law hospital will announce next week that they are to opt out. Fourteen hospitals are to optout.
I am not aware of what happened here earlier this morning, but I am concerned that, while I have been doing my work on the last day before the Christmas recess, my constituents have been panicking because of reports of hospital opt-outs—information that should have been provided first to Members of Parliament. I am in an embarrassing position, because I cannot give answers to my constituents. It is disgraceful. I want—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hear the hon. Gentleman. I understand and sympathise with him if he feels that he has been placed in an embarrassing position with his constituents. No hon. Member should be placed in that position. However, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) is waiting to raise an important matter that affects his constituents. My job is to protect the interests of all Back Benchers, and the hon. Gentleman has gone to considerable trouble to ensure that he can voice the concerns of his constituents. I am sure that Scottish Members would not want to embarrass him with his constituents by preventing him from putting his case.
Given that, as I understand it, negotiations are continuing through the usual channels, and the fact that hon. Gentlemen have put their points with conviction and considerable persuasion, I hope that we can now move on to the next debate. I call the hon. Member for Croydon, South.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No; I have heard the points of order.

Mrs. Irene Adams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady has not yet put a point of order to me. As she has been rising with some conviction, I shall hear her.

Mrs. Adams: You have been referring to "hon. Gentlemen," Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Adams: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder what protection the House can offer me and, therefore, the constituents who elected me. They learned this morning, from a newspaper published 200 miles away, that our local hospital is to opt out of the national health service. What protection can the House give me against that announcement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to say to hon. Members—[Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members cannot get up when I am speaking.
The hon. Lady asked what protection was available for Back Benchers. She could have asked a private notice question this morning, but, to the best of my knowledge, none was submitted to Madam Speaker. The avenues in this House are legion. Hon. Members have been here a long time and they know that what they should not and cannot do is continually to challenge the Chair on a policy issue, which is an argument between the Opposition and the Government—[Interruption.] Order. I understand the strength of feeling and I am sure that Madam Speaker would also understand it. However, the House succeeds only if hon. Members respect the Chair.
Since hon. Members have now put their views twice and with considerable conviction, and having, I imagine, gained enormous media coverage, I hope that we can now move on to the scheduled debate. [Interruption.] Order. The subject of delays in the commercial courts is every bit as important as trust hospitals—[Interruption.] Order. I will take a last point of order from the Opposition Front Bench. My understanding is that negotiations are continuing through the usual channels—[Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members may disagree with their Front Bench, but my information is that negotiations are continuing.

Mrs. Fyfe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank you for your great courtesy and helpfulness this morning. However, we have just learnt that no Minister will come to the House to make a statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] As my hon. Friends say, it is disgraceful. Ministers have had ample opportunity to come to the House, but they have not done so. We can only register our utter contempt for such behaviour. The Government have shown contempt for the House, for the people of Scotland and for the people who use the national health service.
We will have to continue with our points outside the Chamber. We do not want to disrupt the time of other hon. Members who have debates today. We do not want to hurt their the feelings or damage the interests of their constituents. We have used this opportunity to put our points and it is a pity that no Minister has had the guts to come here to discuss the matter with us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Perhaps we can now move on to the next debate.

Commercial Courts

Mr. Richard Ottaway: When so many hon. Members turned up in the Chamber at 11.45 am, I thought for a glorious moment—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I appeal to hon. Members to recognise that what they are doing by standing before the Mace does not bring credit on any part of the United Kingdom. I have listened to a large number of points of order—[Interruption.] Order. I hope that those hon. Members who are trying to prevent democracy at work—[Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members are directly challenging the Chair—[Interruption.] Order. It is not a matter of politics any more—[Interruption.] Order. I suspend the sitting for five minutes.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Madam Speaker: I ask hon. Members who are standing before the Mace to resume their seats.

Mr. Ernie Ross: We do not in any way ignore your presence in the Chamber, Madam Speaker, nor did we intend to insult you or your deputies. We believe that we are entitled to a statement from the Leader of the House, who we know is in the building.

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members normally speak from their seats. I ask hon. Members to resume their seats. I will hear what the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) has to say if hon. Members will now resume their seats. I cannot hear while hon. Members are standing at the Mace.

Mr. Ross: I want to make it quite clear that we did not intend to challenge your presence through your deputy while Mr. Deputy Speaker was in the Chair.
My hon. Friends on the Front Bench and my Back-Bench colleagues have raised a succession of points of order in response to the outrageous decision of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is in the building, who answered questions yesterday afternoon and was present during the five-hour debate on another piece of legislation.
We noticed that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) had a written question on the Order Paper. We woke up this morning to excited telephone calls from our constituents who told us that hospitals in their areas were to be given trust status in a written announcement at 3.30 this afternoon. They demanded that we do something about that. That is why we are here. We could not answer their questions, so we are here to find out what is happening.
We are simply asking for a statement. If the Scottish Office Minister responsible is not present, we know that the Leader of the House is here as we have seen him. We want him to make a statement about the decision of the Secretary of State for Scotland to grant trust status to a number of hospitals in Scotland.
I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker reported to you everything that has happened this morning. It is not just

today's announcement; it is much more worrying that an announcement is to be made next week while the House is in recess. That is even more insulting, given the rules that you, Madam Speaker, and your predecessor have made about Ministers making press statements or announcements by way of press statements instead of coming to the House.

Madam Speaker: I have been listening for most of the morning to the points of order, and the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) has made the position quite clear to me once more. I understand that negotiations are taking place outside to see whether a statement can be made before the House rises today. That being the case, hon. Members should allow the debate to take place, as we always do in this House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no more points of order on this subject. We must now allow the debate to take place.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard all the points of order and I have been listening all morning. Hon. Members must now wait to see whether a statement by a Minister will be made later today. I believe that the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has the Floor.

Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I heard the point of order from the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who has made the matter quite clear on behalf of most of the hon. Members who are in the Chamber. I have been listening all morning and we must now proceed with our debate. I call Mr. Ottaway.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard all the points of order that are necessary. Freedom of speech is allowed for everyone in this House. I have heard points of order from hon. Members who have been raising them all morning. I take them very seriously, but the debate must now proceed. Back Benchers have a right to make themselves heard.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I believe that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) is seeking to raise a point of order from the Opposition Front Bench. I will listen to that point of order, which will be the final point of order.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I thank you for your consideration, Madam Speaker. Can you clarify further what you said a moment ago when you said that you believed that negotiations were continuing? We understood just a few minutes ago that there was to be no ministerial statement. Is it your understanding that negotiations are still continuing?

Madam Speaker: I understood from the Annunciator that negotiations were taking place. Nobody has informed me other than that. Therefore, until I know, I think that the debate must be allowed to take place.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard enough points of order. I call Mr. Ottaway.

Mr. Home Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already raised a point of order. I have dealt with all the points of order that are necessary. We must wait until I, as Speaker, am told whether a statement is to be made. Hon. Members must do likewise.

Mr. Ottaway: In drawing attention to delays in the commercial courts, I shall initially declare an interest as a solicitor and a director of a company which from time to time has reason to use the commercial court.

Mr. Home Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I have to protect what is known as the Royal Assent and therefore I shall suspend the House until 3 o'clock.

Sitting suspended.

3 pm

On resuming—

Royal Assent

Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act 1992
Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992
Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992

Adjourned without Question put at one minute past Three o'clock, pursuant to the Resolutions [27 November and 14 December], till Monday 11 January.